Gomess wrote:This is one example of how you often give what I consider non sequitur responses. No matter how many times Dom and Trekwave said, "We're focusing on the aesthetics", you responded "You guys are only analysing the aesthetics".
You must have skipped several posts because this is a difference Shockwave and I had argued about already. Shockwave had pointed out he was arguing "on a conceptual level" as he put it, to which I agreed his argument was. But I'd argued Dom's argument was much more generalized than that, dealing with the two genres as a whole. Something I'd point out here that Dom didn't dispute. Dom never argued that he was "focusing on the aesthetics", rather he argued the differences between the two are "largely aesthetic". In other words, his argument is along the lines of "new packaging, same product". While my argument has been that they aren't the same product, that there is differences beyond aesthetics.
You also make sweeping generalisations like, "Science fantasy is a term used in literature and literary criticism" with no kind of citation. If you'd said, "It's a term I've heard used in literary discourse", fair enough, but you implied it was a normalised term with some historical precedent. Maybe I missed something, but it all seemed incredibly cyclical. Did you feel like the debate was going anywhere?
I never said anything of the sort to make such a "sweeping generalization". All I pointed out while using that term is that stories that combine elements of sci-fi and fantasy are generally categorized as a separate sub-genre, "like science-fantasy". No kind of citation? As I recall, you had pointed out yourself that you'd been able to find the term on Wikipedia, to which I'd commented I was referencing what I learned from a science fiction lit. course I took in college. And when you pressed me for some author/critic who had used the term, I'd pointed out an author, James Blish, who defined the term in a book that was published in 1970. While on the subject though, I feel I should also point out, if you just google it you can find a that is a term frequently used and that it's been around since the about the 1940's from what I can see. So are you suggesting it isn't a normalized term with some historical precedent, despite all of that? As for how I thought the debate was going, yes, I did think it was going somewhere, albeit slowly.
Maybe it's a result of the internet not allowing us to convey our tones of voice or what we really mean, but both O6 and I have pointed out that you frequently don't give straight answers. In all likelihood, it could just be that the debates O6 and I have had with others in our lives happened to be more didactic, so we're used to getting "Yes" or "No" answers, or sticking to a single point until it's been resolved.
What I'm seeing here is that I'm being totally misquoted and my points misconstrued. I mean, how can you argue that I "frequently don't give straight answers" when you're implying I said things that I never did or even intended? As I commented on earlier, I actually do some research on my points to make sure what I'm arguing is a straight and accurate answer, some of which, I'd point out once again, I have cited during the debate. I can't speak for your experiences with debates of course, but it appears to me you're somehow misunderstanding or totally missing what I'm saying.
And I dunno about O6, I get the impression he has a grudge against me simply because I've started some debates.
Shockwave wrote:Well what I've noticed is that a lot of times I think terminology gets mixed up. Sparky will say one thing that to him conveys what he wants to say but I'll wind up interpreting it incorrectly and then we'll have to go 10 pages of debating and mostly trying to reword or articulate what we both actually mean. The AHM Starscream debate was a perfect example of this as he and I actually did wind up agreeing on the point we were debating but it took about that many pages just to figure that out. I will definitely agree that one of the things I like about posting here is that we do have the intelligence to get into these debates. I actually do find them enjoyable.
Yes, I'd have to agree. I remember that debate on AHM you mention. I thought it was pretty funny when it ended up we actually agreed on the point we'd been debating, but it took us a while to get there because we were misinterpreting what each other meant. And like you, I find it enjoyable that we can get into these types of intelligent debates on this board. On so many other boards such debates just seem to devolve into unintelligible flaming.
Gomess wrote:I do like how adamant Sparky is in his belief. Mostly because, as far as I can tell, he doesn't think sci-fi is BETTAR than fantasy or anything. He just appreciates their inherent differences. More than most of us. =3
Yes, I think that's a good way of putting it.